Amazon.com Top 100 Books of the Millenium

[S]ince my intent is to write something useful to
whoever understands it, it has appeared to me more fitting to go directly
to the effectual
truth of the thing than to the imagination of it.
-The
Prince, Chapter XV, Of Those Things for Which Men And Especially Princes
Are Praised or Blamed (translated by Harvey C. Mansfield)

It was this one revolutionary idea, as much as any of the specific advice
that Niccolo Machiavelli actually gives in the book, that so shocked, and
continues to shock, the world. Though politics has been called the
"art of the possible", we remain impossibly idealistic about it.
Particularly here in the liberal democratic West, we yearn for "clean"
politics (witness the continual and utterly futile efforts at campaign
finance reform), noble and selfless civil servants, wise legislation, and
salutary results from those laws. We've even reached the fantastical
point in recent years where partisanship has become suspect, as if there
were something illegitimate about the two parties jockeying with one another
for political advantage. Small wonder then that we have such a difficult
time appreciating a work whose sole purpose is to instruct a prince in
the obtaining and the maintenance of power.

Machiavelli's concern here is particularly foreign to us because our
own government has been so stable for so long (even during the Civil War,
during which that stability was most threatened, we managed to hold a presidential
election). But if there is ever going to be a time when we can catch
even a tiny glimpse of what motivated Machiavelli and how sound was his
counsel, perhaps it is during this current crisis. On September 11th,
we got just a tiny taste of instability and we did not much like it.
In the weeks since, we have countenanced actions by our national leaders
that would be unthinkable in normal times, from rounding up a thousand
suspects to military tribunals on the domestic front, to allying ourselves
with reprehensible regimes and toppling a foreign government (The Taliban)
simply for hosting terrorism suspects, on the international front.
The American people, normally rather squeamish about the exercise of governmental
power, have suddenly discovered an awfully high tolerance for its
swift, brutal, and decisive application. You might almost think that
they'd read the following :

Someone could question how it happened that Agathocles
and anyone like him, after infinite betrayals and cruelties, could live
for a long
time secure in his fatherland, defend himself against
external enemies, and never be conspired against by his citizens, inasmuch
as many
others have not been able to maintain their states
through cruelty even in peaceful times, not to mention uncertain times
of war. I believe
that this comes from cruelties badly used or well
used. Those can be called well used (if it is permissible to speak
well of evil) that are
done at a stroke, out of the necessity to secure
oneself, and then are not persisted in but are turned to as much utility
for the subjects as
one can. Those cruelties are badly used which,
though few in the beginning, rather grow with time than are eliminated.
Those who
observe the first mode can have some remedy for
their state with God and with men, as had Agathocles;
as for the others it is impossible
for them to maintain themselves.
-Chapter VIII, Of Those Who Have Attained a Principality through Crimes

But, of course, no one needed to because, as Machiavelli well understood,
such is the reality of how states behave, as opposed to the flowery rhetoric
with which they drape themselves in times of peace. And, as he said,
the administration has a limited time during which they wield a free hand,
but it is important that the measures they've adopted be seen as temporary
and directed only at the present danger. they must act "at a stroke."

Similarly, after at least a decade (the post-Cold War period) in which
America has sought to be loved, we've suddenly relearned the value of being
feared. One watches the Yemenis, the Pakistanis, and others leap
to do our bidding and easily understands the following :

[A] dispute arises whether it is better to be loved
than feared, or the reverse. The response is that one would want
to be both the one and
the other; but because it is difficult to put them
together, it is much safer to be feared than loved, if one has to lack
one of the two.

Particularly in the field of foreign affairs, we should cultivate such
fear.

On the other hand, Machiavelli, for all his evil reputation, never lost
sight of the realities of governance, the most important of which is that
true tyranny is ineffective in the long run :

The prince should nonetheless make himself feared
in such a mode that if he does not acquire love, he escapes hatred, because
being
feared and not being hated can go together very
well. This he will always do if he abstains from the property of
his citizens and his
subjects, and from their women; and if he also needs
to proceed against someone's life, he must do it when there is suitable
justification
and manifest cause for it. But above all,
he must abstain from the property of others, because men forget the death
of a father more
quickly than the loss of a patrimony. Furthermore,
causes for taking away property are never lacking, and he who begins to
live by
rapacity always finds cause to seize others' property;
and, on the contrary, causes for taking life are rarer and disappear more
quickly.
-Chapter XVII, Of Cruelty and Mercy, and Whether It Is Better to Be Loved
Than Feared, or the Contrary

Remarkable, isn't it, that this five hundred year old treatise on politics
should remain as timely and insightful as it has? Mr. Mansfield,
in his very helpful Introduction, says that :

Machiavelli's The Prince...is the most famous
book on politics when politics is thought to be carried out for its own
sake, unlimited by
anything above it. The renown of The Prince
is precisely to have been the first and the best book to argue that politics
has and should
have its own rules and should not accept rules of
any kind or from any source where the object is not to win or prevail over
others.

Readers may (almost certainly will) still find much of The Prince shocking,
but I think there's one easy mental trick that you can play that will make
it much harder to reject out of hand. Try substituting the words
"our government" every time Machiavelli refers to "the prince", and see
if you don''t find yourself agreeing that that what seemed like the most
cynical and amoral suggestions don't now seem entirely reasonable when
it comes to preserving our state. If that doesn't work for you, try
substituting "the next leader of Afghanistan", and see if the prospect
of trying to impose order where there is only chaos doesn't make some of
Machiavelli's policy prescriptions more palatable.

Comments:

This review stands out among some of the reviews that I have read about NICCOLO MACHIAVELLI. It exposes both views of Machiavelli, which is what a review is supposed to be about. But many students, or even intructors, get caught up by inserting their own personal political views in some of the reviews that I have read, which is unfair to new learners. Keep up the good work. Dierry Dubosse

- Dierry Dubosse

- Mar-08-2005, 16:02

*******************************************************

i was assigned a task to write a review ofthe prince and was not clear in my thoughts.this review helped me alot as to how to write a good review.

- nadia mahboob

- Oct-23-2004, 12:54

*******************************************************

Thank you for taking the time to review this book. I'm doing a Project on "The Prince" and do you have any idea how rare reviews are for a 500 year old book?

- Aaron

- Jan-28-2004, 11:04

*******************************************************

I think this review is remarkable because it really makes me think about modern politics in todays society!

- shuhnaynay

- Dec-29-2003, 17:10

*******************************************************

-

- Dec-29-2003, 16:51

*******************************************************

I think that this review is more of an overlook of modern politics and not just the art of politics in general.

- Jared

- Dec-29-2003, 16:51

*******************************************************

I think that this review is more of an overlook of modern politics and not just the art of politics in general.